Responsibility of State for wrongful conviction

Within the legal system of Argentina, if an individual is confined by preventive detention before trial, it is possible to sue a judicial claim against the State if he or she can prove that such measure was unreasonably prolonged, or if it was illegitimate. This would be a case of jurisdictional responsibility of the State based on prolonged or illegitimate preventive imprisonment. The purpose of this article is to analyze two judicial decisions that resolve claims of this type, trying to shed some light on the argumentative construction developed by the judges when accepting or rejecting the lawsuits. This analysis allows access to the judges' perspectives on the State's jurisdictional activity, the role of criminal justice and the social background of the plaintiffs. The novelty of this approach lies in the fact that other studies on the topic of preventive detention emphasize issues of criminal policy or the functioning of the criminal justice system, while the focus here is on trials involving subsequent financial reparations. Thus, this perspective articulates the fields of legal sociology, law and Discourse Analysis studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sortuz
Published
2025-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.35295/sz.iisl/2003
Primary Topic
International Law and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Responsibility of State for wrongful conviction

Federico Urtubey
Sortuz
International Law and Human Rights
article

Responsibility of State for wrongful conviction

Federico Urtubey
article en

Abstract

Within the legal system of Argentina, if an individual is confined by preventive detention before trial, it is possible to sue a judicial claim against the State if he or she can prove that such measure was unreasonably prolonged, or if it was illegitimate. This would be a case of jurisdictional responsibility of the State based on prolonged or illegitimate preventive imprisonment. The purpose of this article is to analyze two judicial decisions that resolve claims of this type, trying to shed some light on the argumentative construction developed by the judges when accepting or rejecting the lawsuits. This analysis allows access to the judges' perspectives on the State's jurisdictional activity, the role of criminal justice and the social background of the plaintiffs. The novelty of this approach lies in the fact that other studies on the topic of preventive detention emphasize issues of criminal policy or the functioning of the criminal justice system, while the focus here is on trials involving subsequent financial reparations. Thus, this perspective articulates the fields of legal sociology, law and Discourse Analysis studies.

SortuzVol. 15(1)
Universidad Nacional de La Plata (AR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
International Law and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.